[Part 1] Joseph Sadek - A Clinician’s Guide to Suicide Risk Assessment and Management by 5MedBook

A Clinicianâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Guide to Suicide Risk Assessment and Management Joseph Sadek

123

A Clinicianâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Guide to Suicide Risk Assessment and Management

JosephÂ Sadek

A Clinicianâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Guide to Suicide Risk Assessment and Management

Joseph Sadek Department of Psychiatry Dalhousie University Department of Psychiatry Halifax, Nova Scotia Canada

ISBN 978-3-319-77772-6 ISBN 978-3-319-77773-3 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77773-3 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018962877 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

I want to give my sincere thanks to Dr. Scott Theriault, Director of the Department of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University, who wrote the foreword and contributed to the review. I also want to thank the following reviewers: Dr. Michael Teehan, MD, FRCPC Dr. Stan Kutcher, MD, FRCPC Dr. Nicholas Delva, MD, FRCPC Dr. Curt Peters, MD, FRCPC Dr. Ezio Dini, MD, FRCPC Dr. Sonia Chehil, MD, FRCPC Dr. Jacob Cookey, MD, FRCPC Ms. Mary Pyche, MSW I want to give my sincere thanks and gratitude to my wife Irene and my two children who were extremely supportive during the journey of producing the book. I want to thank Maryanne Sadek (University of Ottawa) for her work in generating the case studies and suicide instruments and for her work on assisting in the production of the book.

Foreword

Suicide is an enduring, endemic issue in mental health. Despite advances in the treatment and management of mental illness, suicide rates in the general population have remained stubbornly consistent over the years. There remains an urgent need to identify individuals at risk for suicide at the earliest opportunity so that appropriate interventions can be undertaken to manage and reduce risk at the personal level and to advocate for positive change in the social determinates of health that may underlie illness and illness behavior, including suicidal behavior. Dr. Sadek, who is a psychiatrist and associate professor in the Department of Psychiatry at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, has produced a valuable concise guide for clinicians on the assessment and management of suicide risk. Dr. Sadek has been instrumental in his clinical work and, organizationally, in the development and dissemination of suicide risk assessment tools at the local and provincial level in Canada as required by Accreditation Canada to forward the goal of reducing death by suicide. His work in suicide prevention in the province of Nova Scotia has been replicated by another Canadian province, and several others are interested in adopting his work. The book covers a range of topics, such as the epidemiology of suicide and parasuicide, clinical populations and their relationship to suicide and suicidal ideation, a practical approach to suicide assessment, and the benefits and limitations of structured assessments. Once identified, it covers interventions, both at the community and inpatient level, and is richly referenced to steer the reader to therapies for specific populations and has links to a wide array of guidelines, risk assessment tools, and other resources in the field of suicide prevention. The language used throughout the text is accessible, jargon free, and geared toward a general readership. Each chapter begins with a general overview or introduction to the topic and then develops the topic in more detail, often using bullet points or charts to clarify and enhance understanding. Dr. Sadek has written a text that covers an important area in mental health, one that we ignore at our peril. It should be a valuable resource for the beginning clinician or trainee and a very useful reference for the experienced clinician. ScottÂ Theriault Dalhousie University Halifax, NS, Canada vii

viii

Foreword

About the Reviewer Dr. Theriault is the deputy head of the Department of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University, and the clinical director for mental health and addictions for the Nova Scotia Health Authority, in Halifax, NS.Â He is an internationally recognized forensic psychiatrist and a founder of Forensic Psychiatry as recognized by the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and has extensive experience in the field of suicide risk assessment and management. An experienced clinician/administrator with over 25Â years in practice, Dr. Theriault has a broad understanding of suicide at the personal, clinical, and systemic level.

Disclaimer

The text in this book and its references are for education, guidance, and information purposes only. Responsibility remains in the hands of the clinician diagnosing and treating their own patient to determine the correct course for their patient. No one who took part in creating this text can be held legally responsible for any of the information contained in the text.

Contents

1 Purpose and Background �� 1 1.1 Introduction �� 1 1.2 Epidemiology �� 2 1.2.1 Worldwide �� 2 1.2.2 The USA �� 2 1.2.3 Canada �� 2 1.3 The Burden and Cost of Suicide �� 4 1.3.1 The Cost of Suicide �� 4 1.3.2 Estimating the Cost of Suicide �� 5 1.4 Understanding Suicide Risk Assessment and Suicide Risk Management �� 5 1.5 Does Asking About Suicide Make a Patient More Likely to Act On It? �� 7 References �� 7 2 Understanding Suicide and Self-Harm �� 9 2.1 Difference Between Suicide and Self-Harm �� 9 2.2 Suicidal Behavior and Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) �� 10 2.3 What are the Diagnostic Symptom Criteria of Borderline Personality Disorder? �� 11 2.4 What are Some of the Helpful Tips for Managing Borderline Patients in Primary Care Setting? �� 11 2.5 Examples of Psychotherapeutic Approaches for Patients with BPD �� 12 References �� 13 3 The Content of the Suicide Risk Assessment �� 15 3.1 Overview on the Requirement for Suicide Risk Assessment �� 15 3.2 Required Organizational Practice (ROP) Standards �� 16 3.3 Common Challenges in Suicide Risk Assessment �� 16 3.4 The Suicide Risk Assessment Process �� 17 3.4.1 Step 1: Building a Therapeutic Relationship and Alliance with the Patient and Asking About Suicidal Ideation and Plan �� 17

xii

Contents

3.4.2 Step 2: Identify Risk Factors, Noting Those That Can Be Modified to Reduce Risk �� 18 3.4.3 Protective Factors �� 27 3.4.4 Step 3: Formulating Risk: Make a Clinical Judgment of the Risk that a Patient/Client May Attempt or Complete Suicide in the Short or Long Term �� 27 References �� 30 4 Suicide Risk Assessment Tools and Instruments �� 33 4.1 Challenges in Evaluation of Suicide Risk Assessment Tools �� 33 4.2 Reasons for Using Suicide Risk Assessment Tools �� 33 4.3 Suicide Screening and Risk Assessment Instruments �� 33 4.4 Screening Tools �� 34 4.5 Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) Depression Scale �� 34 4.6 SAFE-T �� 35 4.6.1 Assessment Tools �� 35 4.7 SAD PERSONS �� 37 4.7.1 Suggested New Suicide Risk Assessment Tool �� 41 References �� 44 5 Management of Patients with Acute Suicidality �� 45 5.1 Medicolegal View �� 45 5.2 Management of Suicidal Patients �� 46 5.2.1 Safety Needs to Consider in the Physical Environment (E.g., Emergency Room or Inpatient) �� 46 5.2.2 Select a Treatment Setting and Protocol Based on Your SRA Risk Level �� 47 5.2.3 Select Other Specific Measures to Manage the Suicidal Patient Based on Your Clinical Judgment �� 52 5.3 Hospitalization of Patients with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) �� 53 References �� 54 6 Documentation and Communication �� 55 6.1 Overview on Malpractice and Documentation �� 55 6.1.1 The Importance of Documentation �� 55 6.2 Documentation Requirement of SRA �� 56 6.3 Documentation on Inpatient Units for Patients Admitted for Suicide-Related Issues �� 56 6.4 Continuity of Care for Suicidal Patients �� 57 6.5 Documentation in Emergency Room �� 57 References �� 58 7 Suicide Risk Assessment Quality Monitoring �� 59 7.1 Audit Process �� 59 7.2 Emergency Department Audit Checklist �� 59 7.3 Psychiatric Inpatient Audit Checklist �� 60

Contents

xiii

7.4 Mental Health Outpatient Audit Checklist �� 60 7.4.1 Examples of Audit Findings �� 60 References �� 61 8 Case Studies �� 63 8.1 Case 1: Anna �� 63 8.2 Case 2: Shawn �� 66 8.3 Case 3: Diane �� 69 8.4 Case 4: Christine C �� 72 Appendix A �� 75 Appendix B �� 77 Appendix C �� 79 Appendix D �� 85 Appendix E �� 87 Appendix F �� 91 Appendix G �� 93 Appendix H �� 95 Appendix I �� 99 Appendix J �� 101 Appendix K �� 103

About the Author

Dr. Sadek is an associate professor of psychiatry at Dalhousie University and the medical director of the Atlantic ADHD Center in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. He is also the clinical and academic leader, Nova Scotia Hospital, Mayflower Unit, Dartmouth, NS, Canada. Dr. Sadek is a diplomat of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (DABPN) and fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (FRCPC). In addition to his medical degree (1990), Dr. Sadek also holds a pharmacy degree (B.Sc. Pharm 1986) and an M.B.A. from St. Mary’s University. He also completed a one-year research training program at Harvard Medical School and obtained the certification of the Global Clinical Scholars Research Program (GCSRP) with commendation. He completed his psychiatry residency training at Dalhousie University, Nova Scotia, Canada. Dr. Sadek served as the head of the Neurosciences professional competency unit for the Dalhousie Medical School. He started the first public adult ADHD clinic in Nova Scotia in 2007. He is very involved in both the undergraduate and postgraduate teaching and has published a book called Clinician’s Guide to ADHD, second edition, in 2013. A second book called Clinician’s Guide to Adult ADHD Comorbidities was published in 2016. His third book Clinician’s Guide to ADHD Comorbidities in Children and Adolescents was released in 2018. Dr. Sadek has several peer-reviewed articles and received several quality awards for his work. He served as the vice president of the Canadian ADHD

xvi

About the Author

Resource Alliance (CADDRA) and created the CADDRA ADHD Institute in 2012. Dr. Sadek was the chair of the Suicide Prevention Task Force for the Province of Nova Scotia. He was also a member of the Dalhousie University Senate. Dr. Sadek received the Mental Health Program Quality Council Certificate of Excellence Award for commitment to quality review (2012) and Mental Health Program Quality Council Certificate of Excellence Award for development and implementation of suicide risk assessment form (2012). In 2017, he received the Saint Mary’s University MBA 25th Anniversary Alumni Impact Award.

Purpose and Background

Purpose This document is developed to provide clinicians with a comprehensive guide to expand their clinical understanding of suicide risk assessment and management. Clinicians are encouraged to update their knowledge and continue to review the new literature and study other educational or competency enriching materials to improve their clinical understanding of suicide risk assessment and management.

1.1

Introduction

Suicide is viewed as a multidimensional determined outcome, which results from a complex interaction of biological, genetic, psychological, sociological and environmental factors. Not all of these factors are present nor are they equally weighted in all suicides. Thus, the outcome of any one suicide may be the result of factors or weighting of factors that can be different from those related to any other suicide. Suicide is a highly emotional topic, and while suicide is a rare event (current Canadian rates are about 10–12/100,000), the experience of suicide can touch almost every person, family, and community. There exists a stigma related to suicide, and this stigma may be a barrier to help-seeking for individuals who are contemplating suicide (Ref: Health Canada www.hc-sc.gc.ca). It is important to note that people with mental disorders have higher mortality rates than the general population, and researchers suggest that more detailed estimates of mortality differences are needed to address this public health issue (Erlangsen et al. 2017).

1.2

1 Purpose and Background

Epidemiology

1.2.1 Worldwide According to the World Health Organization (WHO), suicide is globally among the top 10 causes of death and the second leading cause of death in people aged 15–29 years. In 2012, about 804,000 people died by suicide globally, accounting for 1.4% of deaths worldwide. The average population annual rate of death by suicide is estimated to be 11.4/100,000 (15.0 per 100,000 people per year in men and 8.0 per 100,000 in women) (WHO). There are wide variations of suicide rates reported across different countries, and suicide risk factors are not the same in every location. In high-income Western countries (e.g., Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the USA), suicide rates are about three times higher in males than in females, and individuals who have a mental illness are at much higher risk for suicide. Risk factors that appear to be universal include youth or old age, a mental disorder, low socioeconomic status, substance use, and previous suicide attempts. Mental disorders occupy a primary position in the matrix of causation, although their relative contribution to suicide differs across countries (Patel et al. 2015). The World Health Organization has estimated suicide rates among those aged 75 and to be 50/100,000 for men and 16/100,000 for women (WHO).

1.2.2 The USA In the USA, suicide is the 10th leading cause of death for all ages. There were 41,149 suicides in 2013 in the USA—a rate of 12.6 per 100,000 is equal to 113 suicides each day or 1 every 13 min (Centre for Disease Control-CDC). In 2011, over eight million adults reported having serious thoughts about suicide, and over one million reported a suicide attempt. An estimated 2.7 million people (1.1%) made a plan about how they would attempt suicide in the past year (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration-SAMSHA, NSDUH Report 2011). In 2015, a total of 2,712,630 resident deaths (all causes) were registered in the USA—86,212 more deaths than in 2014. The crude death rate for 2015 (844.0 deaths per 100,000 population) was 2.5% higher than the 2014 rate (823.7) (National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 66, No. 6, November 27, 2017, CDC). In 2015, suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death among persons aged 10–14, the 2nd among persons aged 15–34 years, the 4th among persons aged 35–44 years, and the 17th among persons 65 years and older (Centre for Disease Control-CDC).

1.2.3 Canada In Canada suicide is a major cause of premature and preventable death. Close to 4000 people die by suicide each year in Canada. According to a Public Health

1.2 Epidemiology

Agency of Canada report in 2006, suicide accounts for the cause of 1.7% of all deaths in Canada. The reporting of death by suicide is assigned by coroner deliberation. However, this statistic does not take into consideration those suicides wrongly reported as accidental deaths or cases where it is difficult for a coroner to appropriately assess whether or not the death was intentional. (Ref: Health Canada www.hc-sc.gc.ca) Suicide across the life span Children and youth (10–19 years) Suicide is the second leading cause of death For males ages 10–14, the rate is 41% For males ages 15–19, the rate is 70% For females the rate of self-harm hospitalization is 72% Young adults (20–29) Suicide is the second leading cause of death Males account for 75% of suicides For females the rate of self-harm hospitalization is 58% Adults (30–44 years) Suicide is the third leading cause of death Males account for 75% of suicides For females the rate of self-harm hospitalization is 56% Adults (45–64 years) Suicide is the seventh leading cause of death Males account for 73% of suicides (highest suicide rate is observed among males ages 45–59) For females the rate of self-harm hospitalization is 56% Seniors 65+ Suicide is the 12th leading cause of death Males account for 80% of suicides (highest suicide rate is observed among males above age 85) For females the rate of self-harm hospitalization is 52% Canada, 2016, Public Health Agency of Canada Report

For every 1 suicide death, there are 7–10 people profoundly affected by suicide loss. It is estimated that in 2009 alone, there were about 100,000 years of potential life lost to Canadians under the age of 75 as a result of suicide (Statistics Canada). In 2012, approximately 3900 death in Canada were attributed to suicide. This resulted in suicide rate of 11.3 deaths per 100,000 people (2972 male compared to 954 females or rate of 17.3/100,000 for males versus 5.4/100,000 for females). Suicide rates in adolescents (ages 15–19) have risen from a low of about 7/100,000 in 2005 to 10/100,000 in 2012. There are provincial differences in suicide rates, for example, in 2009: Ontario rate was 9/100,000, Quebec 12.5/100,000, and British Columbia 10.2/100,000. Rates of suicide and suicidal ideation are high in some First Nations communities and even higher in some Inuit communities. Among First Nations communities, suicide rates are twice the national average and show no signs of decreasing. Suicide rates among Inuit are even higher than among First Nations, at 6 to 11 times the Canadian average.

1 Purpose and Background

In Nunavut, rates are so high that 27% of all deaths since 1999 have been suicides. Nunavut’s suicide rate—already one of the highest in the world—continues to rise, especially among youth. There are significant differences in suicide rates within aboriginal/First Nations communities with some demonstrating high rates and some with rates well below the Canadian rate. Another group of Canadians, LGBTQT, have higher suicide rates than the national average (www.publichealth.gc.ca).

1.3

The Burden and Cost of Suicide

The psychological and social impact of suicide on the family and society is immeasurable. On average, a single suicide intimately affects at least 7–10 other people. If a suicide occurs in a school or workplace, it can have an impact on many of those who are present or on site in those locations. Some high-profile suicides can have substantial impact on communities as well. The burden of suicide can be estimated in terms of DALYs (disability-adjusted life years) and years of life lost (YLLs) to premature mortality or years of productive life lost (YPLL). According to this indicator, suicide was responsible for 39 million disability- adjusted life years in 2012. Mental and substance use disorders accounted for 183.9 million DALYs or 7.4% (6.2%–8.6%) of all DALYs worldwide in 2010 (Whiteford et al. 2013).

1.3.1 The Cost of Suicide 1.3.1.1 The USA The national cost of suicide and suicide attempts in 2013 was $58.4 billion. Based on reported numbers alone costs and the average suicide costs $1,164,499 (Centre for Disease Control-CDC). 1.3.1.2 Canada The estimated financial cost of a suicide ranges from $433,000 to $4,131,000 per individual, depending on potential years of life lost, income level, and effects on survivors (Mental Health Commission Report, 2016. Mentalhealthcommission.ca). 1.3.1.3 Australia The average cost per youth suicide is valued at $2,884,426, including $9721 in direct costs, $2,788,245 as the value of lost productivity, and $86,460 as the cost of bereavement. The total economic loss of youth suicide in Australia is estimated at $22 billion a year (equivalent to US$ 17 billion), ranging from $20 to $25 billion (Kinchin and Doran 2018).

1.4 Understanding Suicide Risk Assessment and Suicide Risk Management

1.3.2 Estimating the Cost of Suicide Total cost of suicide is the combination of direct and indirect costs. Examples of direct costs include services for ambulance, police investigation, hospital, physician, autopsy, funeral, and cremation. If it is attempted suicide, but not completed, other costs may include psychotherapy, rehabilitation, and drug treatments. Indirect costs: Indirect costs are lost economic productivity that society must bear over time; they can be thought of as discounted future earnings due to potential years of life lost. In case of suicide attempts, costs can also include informal care, social welfare costs, and costs due to homelessness or unemployment (Kinchin and Doran 2018). Example of estimating suicide cost in Australia (Kinchin and Doran 2018) Direct cost Funeral $4000 Autopsy and administrative cost $2595 Ambulance $805 Police $2595 Total Direct cost $9995 Bereavement and postvention cost $14,410 per person × 6 = $86,460 Indirect cost Productivity loss = $2,788,245

1.4

nderstanding Suicide Risk Assessment and Suicide U Risk Management

Suicide risk assessment and suicide risk management are clinical competencies that are applied by mental health and healthcare providers throughout the period of patient care. Suicide risk assessment refers to the health provider’s evaluation of suicide probability for a patient that occurs at every point of patient contact. This assessment can be applied with various degrees of intensity and can be assisted by the use of certain assessment tools that can be applied in specific situations. Not every point of patient contact requires the same degree of risk evaluation, but every point of patient contact requires a degree of risk evaluation. The degree of evaluation is based on clinical judgment, knowledge of the patient, and knowledge of the patient’s circumstances. It can include information obtained directly from the patient or from collateral sources. Over the course of clinical contact with a patient, suicide risk may change. For example, the emergence of specific symptoms (such as command hallucinations telling the person to take his/her life or the emergence of hopelessness within the context of a depressive episode), worsening of the clinical condition (such as increasing severity of a depressive episode or increased substance use), emergence

1 Purpose and Background

of significant life events (such as loss of a loved one or the suicide of a friend or admired person), and changes in clinical care situations (such as discharge from hospital or post emergency room visit care) can all increase suicide risk during the time course of clinical care. Thus, suicide risk assessment is an ongoing process. The use of suicide assessment tools can assist a clinician in suicide risk assessment and when applied can also provide documentation of what the suicide risk assessment consisted of. This type of documentation may be preferred to clinical notes that make little or no mention of suicide risk assessment details. However, there are no suicide risk assessment tools that can accurately predict whether a person will or will not die by suicide and over what period of time. A suicide risk assessment may enable a trained healthcare provider to determine the probability of death by suicide in the short term (usually over a period of hours to a few days). Long-term predictions are not reliable; thus suicide risk assessment is a continuous process. For some patients, increased risk for suicide can be an acute phenomenon, while for others it can be a chronic phenomenon. For some patients who are at chronically elevated risk for suicide, acute exacerbations of that risk can occur. Suicide risk assessment requires training; a good understanding of the patient, their condition, and their circumstances; and clinician awareness that risk is not a static phenomenon and that risk can change over time. It is the responsibility of the healthcare provider to conduct the most appropriate degree of suicide risk assessment at every patient contact and if information on patient status is received in periods between patient contact points. Suicide risk assessment leads to suicide risk management. Suicide risk management is also a continuous process and is based on the clinician’s determination of the probability of suicide as an outcome—both acute and chronic. It involves application of both general and specific interventions. For example, some general interventions include provision of evidence-based treatments to individuals who have a mental illness or collaborative care approaches to the ongoing treatment of individuals with chronic and persistent mental illness. Some specific interventions may include tailored frequent posthospital or emergency room discharge contact, the advice to limit access to lethal means (such as removing guns from the home), or hospitalization (voluntary or involuntary) as the location in which treatment is provided. Suicide risk assessment and suicide risk management are both the individual responsibility of every healthcare provider and the collective responsibility of the entire healthcare team involved with any specific patient. Communication among members of the healthcare team about patient suicide risk is an important part of ongoing care. Some researchers suggested that there may be gaps in the implementation of evidence-based suicide assessment and management due to mental health professionals’ comfort working with suicidal patients (Roush et al. 2018).

References

1.5

oes Asking About Suicide Make a Patient More Likely D to Act On It?

In the clinical setting, asking about suicide ideation or plans does not increase the risk of suicide. On the contrary, it decreases the risk of suicide as it identifies individuals who are at higher probability of immanent death by suicide and thus is part of ongoing suicide risk assessment. However, there is no substantial data available to provide the answer to the question if outside of the clinical setting, asking people about suicide ideation or plans either decreases or increases risk of death by suicide. According to Bolton and his colleagues (2015), a barrier to assessment is the belief held by some clinicians that asking about suicidal thoughts will induce such thoughts in patients. A nonsystematic review published in 2014 examined 13 studies published between 2001 and 2013 that investigated this question and found that none reported a significant increase in suicidal ideation in patients who were asked about suicide (Bolton et al. 2015).

References American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. Facts and figures: suicide deaths. http://www.afsp. org/understanding-suicide/facts-and-figures. Accessed Jan 2017. Bolton JM, Gunnell D, Turecki G. Suicide risk assessment and intervention in people with mental illness. BMJ. 2015;351:h4978. Canada. Health Canada 2016. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/ healthy-living/suicide-canada-infographic.html. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FASTSTATS: suicide and self-inflicted injury. http:// www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm. Accessed July 2017. Erlangsen A, Andersen PK, Toender A, Laursen TM, Nordentoft M, Canudas-Romo V. Cause- specific life-years lost in people with mental disorders: a nationwide, register-based cohort study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2017;4(12):937–45. Kinchin I, Doran CM. The cost of youth suicide in Australia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(4):E672. Patel V, et al. Disease control priorities. Mental, neurological, and substance use disorders. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: World Bank Group; 2015. Public Health Agency of Canada analysis of Statistics Canada Vital Statistics Death Database and Canadian Institute for Health Information Hospital Morbidity Database; 2006. Roush JF, Brown SL, Jahn DR, Mitchell SM, Taylor NJ, Quinnett P, Ries R. Mental health professionals’ suicide risk assessment and management practices. Crisis. 2018;39(1):55–64. Whiteford HA, Degenhardt L, Rehm J, Baxter AJ, Ferrari AJ, et al. Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2013;382(9904):1575–86. WHO. Preventing suicide: a global imperative. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2014. World Health Organization. Distribution of suicide rates (per 100,000) by gender and age. Geneva. http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suicide_rates_charte/en/index.html. Accessed May 2014. World Health Organization. Preventing suicide: a global imperative. http://www.who.int/ mental_health/suicide-prevention/world_report_2014/en/.

Understanding Suicide and Self-Harm

2.1

Difference Between Suicide and Self-Harm

Researchers and clinicians have struggled with inconsistent terms in describing suicide-related thoughts and behaviors. However, there is some agreement that the term non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) refers to behaviors engaged in with the purposeful intention of hurting oneself without intentionally trying to kill oneself. Several terms are used in the literature, including self-injurious behavior, non- suicidal self-injury, self-mutilation, cutting, deliberate self-harm, delicate self- cutting, self-inflicted violence, parasuicide, and autoaggression. However, many of these terms encompass more than NSSI (Jacobson and Gould 2007). NSSI is expressed in various forms from relatively mild, such as scratching, plucking hair, or interfering with wound healing, to relatively severe forms, such as cutting, burning, or hitting (Gratz et al. 2002). There is suggestion that suicide attempts and NSSI are distinct behaviors. Those who engage in NSSI typically have thoughts of temporary relief, while those who engage in suicidal behaviors have thoughts of permanent relief through death. NSSI is more common than completed suicide and attempts. A review that included approximately 22 empirical studies that addressed NSSI in adolescents suggested that lifetime prevalence rate of NSSI ranges between 13% and 23% and that the typical reported age of onset of NSSI falls between 12 and 14 years of age (Cooper et al. 2006; Jacobson and Gould 2007). Some studies found that NSSI is more often undertaken for reasons such as tension reduction, emotion regulation, anger expression, self-punishment, and a decrease in dissociation, whereas suicide attempts were more often reported as intended to make others better off (Nock and Prinstein 2005). A history of sexual abuse appears to be a specific risk factor for engaging in NSSI (Hamdullahpur et al. 2018). Sexual abuse and parental/other family member’s mental illness were associated with increased odds of having attempted suicide among both

2 Understanding Suicide and Self-Harm

genders, and emotional neglect was also a factor for men. Population attributable risk fractions for sexual abuse were 25.75% for women and 8.56% for men. Sexual abuse and a higher number of ACEs were also related to repeated suicide attempts (Choi et al. 2017). Adverse childhood events in childhood (physical or sexual abuse, domestic violence) were found to account for a substantial proportion of variance in predicting suicidal ideation and attempts among women (16% and 50%, respectively) and men (21% and 33%, respectively) (Afifi et al. 2008) Several psychosocial correlates of NSSI have been identified in the literature including depression, anxiety, eating disorders, alexithymia, hostility, negative self- esteem, antisocial behavior, anger, smoking, and emotional reactivity. Suicidal ideation is predictive of later suicide attempts, but not NSSI. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM- 5), qualifies NSSI as a separate entity, among the disorders requiring further research. The proposed criteria for DSM5 include the following: intentional self-inflicted injury performed with the expectation of physical harm, but without suicidal intent, on 5 or more days in the past year; and the behavior is performed for at least one of the following reasons: to relieve negative thoughts or feelings; to resolve an interpersonal problem; and to cause a positive feeling or emotion. The behavior is associated with at least one of the following: negative thoughts or feelings or interpersonal problems that occur immediately prior to engaging in NSSI, preoccupation with NSSI that is difficult to resist, and frequent urge to engage in NSSI (APA 2013). Suicide attempts and NSSI are correlated with each other. Those who engage in NSSI are at increased risk for suicide compared to individuals who do not self- injure, but the risk remains very low (i.e., about 3–7% of individuals who self-injure eventually die by their self-injury). The risk of death is higher for those with previous suicide attempts. It has been found that approximately half of patients who died by suicide had made at least one previous suicide attempt. Engagement in NSSI is very common among adults with borderline personality disorder (BPD) (Goodman et al. 2012). One of the criteria for a diagnosis of BPD is engagement in self-injurious behaviors or threats, including both suicide attempts and self-mutilation (APA 2013).

2.2

uicidal Behavior and Borderline Personality S Disorder (BPD)

Suicidal behavior (defined as any action that could potentially cause one to die) is found in approximately 80% of borderline personality disorder (BPD) patients, a substantial increase from the general population, with 60–70% of patients engaging in suicide attempts. A history of self-injurious behavior doubles the risk for suicide among BPD patients, but affective instability is also associated with increased suicide attempts.

2.4 What are Some of the Helpful Tips for Managing Borderline Patients in Primary…

The risk of suicide for persons diagnosed with BPD is estimated at 8–10%. This suicide rate is 50 times higher than that of the general population. Although much of the suicidal behavior in BPD does not lead to completed suicide, suicide remains a major cause of death for this population (Dubovsky and Kiefer 2014). WHO has declared that reducing suicide-related mortality is a global imperative (Turecki and Brent 2016).

2.3

hat are the Diagnostic Symptom Criteria W of Borderline Personality Disorder?

According to DSM V (APA 2013), patient has to have a long-standing pattern that started in early adulthood that causes significant impairment in function and meets five of the following criteria: • An intense fear of abandonment, even going to extreme measures to avoid real or imagined rejection or abandonment. • A pattern of unstable intense relationships, sometimes seeing things as black and white or using splitting as a defense. • Rapid changes in self-identity or self-image that include shifting goals and values. • Periods of stress-related paranoia and loss of contact with reality, lasting from a few minutes to a few hours. It can be described as micro psychotic or dissociative experience. • Engagement in impulsive and risky behavior in at least two areas such as reckless driving, sex, spending sprees, binge eating, or drug abuse or gambling. • Suicidal threats or behavior, gestures, or self-injury, often in response to fear of separation or rejection. • Significant and wide mood changes or swings that can happen within the same day, lasting from a few hours to a few days, which can include intense happiness, irritability, or anxiety. • Long-standing feelings of emptiness. • Inappropriate, severe anger episodes or difficulty controlling anger, such as frequently losing temper, being sarcastic or bitter, or having physical fights.

2.4

hat are Some of the Helpful Tips for Managing W Borderline Patients in Primary Care Setting?

• Learn about common clinical presentations and causes of undesirable behavior. • Validate the patient’s feelings by naming the emotion you suspect, such as fear of abandonment, anger, shame, and so on, before addressing the “facts” of the situation, and acknowledge the real stresses in the patient’s situation. • Avoid responding to provocative behavior.

2 Understanding Suicide and Self-Harm

• Schedule regular, time-limited visits that are not contingent on the patient being “sick.” • Set clear boundaries at the beginning of the treatment relationship, and do not respond to attempts to operate outside of these boundaries unless it is a true emergency. • Make open communication with all other providers a condition of treatment. • Avoid polypharmacy and large-volume prescriptions of potentially toxic medications (including tricyclic antidepressants, cardiac medications, and benzodiazepines). • Avoid prescribing potentially addicting medications such as benzodiazepines or opiates. Inform patients of your policies regarding these medications early in the treatment relationship so they are aware of your limits. • Set firm limits on manipulative behavior while avoiding being judgmental. • Do not reward difficult behavior with more contact and attention. Provide attention based on a regular schedule rather than being contingent on behavior (Dubovsky and Kiefer 2014).

2.5

xamples of Psychotherapeutic Approaches for Patients E with BPD

Examples of empirically studied treatments for BPD include dialectic behavior therapy (DBT), mentalization-based therapy, transference-focused psychotherapy, and general psychiatric management. Several types of these psychotherapies have a manual and require therapists to undergo extensive training, to be self-aware and have access to therapy or consultation by other colleagues to avoid burnout. DBT is an outpatient treatment involving group and individual therapy and considered as an effective treatment for BPD. DBT focuses on teaching the patient how to regulate emotions, manage self-destructive feelings and behaviors, tolerate distress, and develop interpersonal effectiveness and ability for reality testing. It uses different techniques over at least 1 year, including acceptance and mindfulness. It has been found to reduce self-harm and suicidality in addition to lowering healthcare costs and utilization of emergency department and inpatient admission. Mentalization-based therapy is another group and individual psychotherapy. The goal of treatment is focused on helping the patient to “mentalize” or understand the mental state of oneself and others and to think before reacting. Transference-focused psychotherapy is an individual, twice-weekly therapy derived from psychoanalysis. It is focused on transference (feelings of the patient projected onto the therapist) and is among the more difficult techniques to learn. General psychiatric management is a once-weekly psychodynamic therapy. It focuses on the patient’s interpersonal relationships and can also include pharmacotherapy and family therapy. This is the most available and easiest to learn. In general, effective treatment requires the patient’s active involvement and commitment (Dubovsky and Kiefer 2014).

References

Other examples include cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), dynamic deconstructive psychotherapy (DDP), and interpersonal therapy for BPD (IPT-BPD) (Stoffers et al. 2012).

References Afifi TO, Enns MW, Cox BJ, Asmundson GJ, Stein MB, Sareen J. Population attributable fractions of psychiatric disorders and suicide ideation and attempts associated with adverse childhood experiences. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(5):946952. American Psychiatric Association, editor. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013. Choi NG, DiNitto DM, Marti CN, Segal SP. Adverse childhood experiences and suicide attempts among those with mental and substance use disorders. Child Abuse Negl. 2017;69:252–62. Cooper J, Biddle L, Owen-Smith A, et al. Suicide after deliberate selfharm: a 4-year cohort study. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;162(2):297–30. Dubovsky AN, Kiefer MM. Borderline personality disorder in the primary care setting. Med Clin North Am. 2014;98(5):1049–64. Goodman M, Roiff T, Oakes AH, Paris J. Suicidal risk and management in borderline personality disorder. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2012;14(1):79–85. Gratz KL, Conrad SD, Roemer L. Risk factors for deliberate self-harm among college students. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2002;72:128–40. Hamdullahpur K, Jacobs KWJ, Gill KJ. Mental health among help-seeking urban women: the relationships between adverse childhood experiences, sexual abuse, and suicidality. Violence Against Women. 2018:1077801218761602. Jacobson CM, Gould M. The epidemiology and phenomenology of non-suicidal self- injurious behavior among adolescents: a critical review of the literature. Arch Suicide Res. 2007;11(2):129–47. Nock MK, Prinstein MJ. Contextual features and behavioral functions of self-mutilation among adolescents. J Abnorm Psychol. 2005;114(1):140–6. Stoffers JM, Völlm BA, Rücker G, Timmer A, Huband N, Lieb K. Psychological therapies for people with borderline personality disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;8:CD005652. Turecki G, Brent DA. Suicide and suicidal behaviour. Lancet. 2016;387(10024):1227–39.

The Content of the Suicide Risk Assessment

Objectives By the end of the chapter, clinicians will be able to: • • • •

Understand the requirement for suicide risk assessment. List some required organizational practice (ROP) standards in certain countries. List common challenges in suicide risk assessment. Describe the process of building a therapeutic relationship and alliance with the patient. • Describe the process of asking questions about suicidal plan, intent, and behavior. • List and identify risk factors, noting those that can be modified to reduce suicide risk. • Understand the limitations of protective or resiliency factors when conducting suicide risk assessment.

3.1

verview on the Requirement for Suicide Risk O Assessment

Good clinical care includes ongoing suicide risk assessment and management. The World Health Organization recommends that all people over the age of 10 years with a mental disorder or other risk factor should be asked about thoughts or plans of self-harm within the past month. Most guidelines encourage the use of standardized process for SRA (see Appendix G). One observational UK study found that the process of assessment itself correlated with a lower likelihood of future suicidal Behavior (Olfson et al. 2013). This speaks to an often overlooked aspect in risk assessment: that clinician-patient contact can provide an important therapeutic effect (Bolton et al. 2015).

3 The Content of the Suicide Risk Assessment

Psychological autopsy, involving interviews with key informants and examination of official records, has shown that psychiatric disorders are present in about 90% of people who kill themselves and contribute to 47–74% of population risk of suicide (Cavanagh et al. 2003). Risk assessments include gathering history and conducting a clinical mental status examination, which are important for baseline information. Risk factors such as history of prior attempts and substance use would be encompassed in the generalized history gathering. Any collateral sources of information may shed additional light on risk factors and recent activities, patterns of escalation, as well as planned or impulsive violence toward self or others (Pinals and Anacker 2016).

3.2

Required Organizational Practice (ROP) Standards

In Canada, accreditation standards require the following organizational practices for suicide prevention (2015): • Clients at risk of suicide are identified. • The risk of suicide for each client is assessed at regular intervals or as needs change. The immediate safety needs of clients identified as being at risk of suicide are addressed. • Treatment and monitoring strategies are identified for clients assessed as being at risk of suicide. • Implementation of the treatment and monitoring strategies is documented in the client record.

3.3

Common Challenges in Suicide Risk Assessment

Suicide risk assessment can be challenging. Many people who are considered to be at high risk for suicide never die by suicide, and some who are not so considered do. There are several challenges in conducting a suicide risk assessment: • Clinicians may have difficulty identifying patient at high imminent risk of suicide. • Clinicians commonly rely on subjectively reported information, which does not always provide a full picture of the risk. Collateral information can provide a more complete picture of risk. • Suicide risk assessment scales do not accurately predict death by suicide. They may be useful as a clinical tool or as documentation of the type of suicide risk assessment that was done but cannot be used for suicide risk assessment by individuals not trained in suicide risk assessment. • There is a lack of consistency in the education and training of health care providers in the competencies needed to conduct a suicide risk assessment.

3.4 The Suicide Risk Assessment Process

• Suicidal behavior can produce anxiety or intense emotional responses in clinicians. When these emotions are unrecognized, they can create negative reactions on the part of the clinician that limit their ability to work effectively with people who are acutely suicidal. • Some clinicians may have negative attitude toward suicidal patients. • Some system issues can be challenging such as limited resources, crowded spaces, multiple priorities, and lack of time. (Betz et al. 2016; Kene et al. 2018)

3.4

The Suicide Risk Assessment Process

3.4.1 S tep 1: Building a Therapeutic Relationship and Alliance with the Patient and Asking About Suicidal Ideation and Plan A positive therapeutic alliance is considered to be a very important foundation for suicide risk assessment. It is a conscious collaboration between the clinician and the patient for the purpose of a mutual exploration of the patient’s problems. Developing a therapeutic alliance involves: • • • • • • • • •

Empathy Active listening Respect Trust Support A non-adversarial and collaborative stance Nonjudgmental acceptance Transparency A strong interest in understanding the person and the nature and cause of their pain/distress (Bryan et al. 2012)

Clinicians should also be aware of their own reactions to suicide or the patient that they are conducting a suicide risk assessment with and attempt to manage those reactions effectively. The therapeutic alliance has been proposed to be important for a number of reasons: 1. It reduces patient anxiety during suicide risk assessments, thereby increasing honesty and accuracy in the patient self-disclosure. 2. It leads to clinical improvement because the answers to the suicidal patient’s struggles lie within him or her, and better alternatives to suicide for coping with problems and life distress can be identified together with the clinician (Jobes 2012).

3 The Content of the Suicide Risk Assessment

3. It has been argued that a strong therapeutic alliance enables the clinician to deliver the interventions and teach the skills that enact the change required for suicide risk to resolve (Bryan et al. 2012). 4. Therapeutic alliance may serve as a protective factor by encouraging a sense of hopefulness and connectedness.

3.4.1.1 Examples of Approaches to Develop Therapeutic Alliance The therapeutic alliance is built from the time that the clinician first makes contact with the patient. Additionally, specific questions can be used by the clinician to move from the development of the therapeutic alliance to the determination of suicide risk. The first step in that process includes confirming the challenges that the patient is having and laying the groundwork for more detailed questions about suicidal ideation and suicide plans. For example, the clinician may say:

I can see that things have been very challenging for you lately. or It seems that you have been having a difficult time lately. or It must be frustrating/difficult to be going through what you are experiencing.

These types of questions provide the link between the patient’s experiences and the clinician’s consideration of that experience and concurrently identify a supportive and caring concern. Once that has been established, it is appropriate to move on to more detailed questioning, depending on the clinician’s appreciation of risk factors as they are described below.

3.4.2 S tep 2: Identify Risk Factors, Noting Those That Can Be Modified to Reduce Risk A risk factor is something that increases the probability of a specific outcome. Risk factors are generally not causal, nor are they all modifiable nor are they all of equal weight in creating the determination of probability. Taken together however they can help provide the clinician with a weighted consideration as to their determination of the probability of the outcome—death by suicide. Risk factors help the clinician arrive at a risk determination. Risk factors can be identified from information received from the patient and from collateral sources (such as family, friends, police, other health providers, medical records, etc.). These sources of information should be used when conducting a suicide risk assessment.

3.4 The Suicide Risk Assessment Process

The following table provides some useful risk factors to consider when conducting a suicide risk assessment. Examples of risk factors for suicide Interview risk profile □ Suicidal thinking or ideation □ Access to lethal means □ Suicide intent or lethal plan or plan for after death (note) □ Hopelessness □ Intense emotions: rage, anger, agitation, humiliation, revenge, panic, severe anxiety □ Current alcohol or substance intoxication/ problematic use □ Withdrawing from family, friends □ Poor reasoning/judgment □ Clinical Intuition: assessor concerned □ Recent dramatic change in mood □ Recent crisis/conflict/loss

Illness management □ Lack of clinical support □ Non-compliance or poor response to treatment

Individual risk profile □ Ethnic, cultural risk group or refugee □ Family history of suicide □ Trauma: as domestic violence/ sexual abuse/neglect □ Poor self-control: impulsive/ violent/aggression □ Recent suicide attempt □ Other past suicide attempts, esp. with low rescue potential □ Mental illness or addiction □ Depression/anhedonia □ Psychotic □ Command hallucinations □ Recent admission/discharge/ED visits □ Chronic medical illness/ pain □ Disability or impairment □ Collateral information supports suicide intent Circle of support □ Lack of family/friend support □ Caregiver unavailable □ Frequent change of home

The table of risk factors is useful to assist the clinician in her/his assessment, but the clinician must apply a variety of different methods to obtain the necessary information. Each clinician must create a series of questions that will allow them to comfortably consider that they have evaluated the risk factor under consideration. A. Ask about suicidal thinking (ideation), and understand the frequency, intensity, duration, plans, and behaviors, and then ask about suicidal ideation in the last 48 h, past month, and worst ever. B. Ask about suicidal plan, intent, and behavior (e.g., loading gun). “Whether or not a plan is present, if a patient has acknowledged suicidal ideation, there should be a specific inquiry about the presence or absence of a firearm in the home. It is also helpful to ask whether there have been recent changes in access to firearms or other weapons, including recent purchases or altered arrangements for storage. If the patient has access to a firearm, the clinician is advised to discuss with and recommend to the patient or a significant other the importance of restricting access to, securing, or removing this and other weapons. Such discussions should be documented in the medical record, including any instructions that have been given to patient and significant others about firearms or other weapons.”

3 The Content of the Suicide Risk Assessment

(Excerpted from the American Psychiatric Association Practice Guidelines for the Assessment and Treatment of Patients with Suicidal Behaviors, Jacobs D, Baldessarini R et al. 2010) Some researchers suggested that two levels of inquiry about firearms may be useful to guide their clinical decision. Level 1 clinician inquire about: • • • •

Firearm access Firearm storage Firearm ammunition availability Social support network to assist with firearms

Level 2 inquiry can be pursued if issues of concern are identified in the earlier questioning: • • • • • • •

Time spent with guns Violent fantasies about guns Psychodynamic attachment to guns How family and peers view guns Intentions of use (hobby, others) Acculturation with guns (new behavior or interest) (Pinals and Anacker 2016)

3.4.2.1 Examples of Questions About Suicidal Ideation The next set of questions can be relatively general, exploring the possibility of suicidal ideation. For example, the clinician can say: Given what you are experiencing, I wonder if you have had any thoughts that you would be better off dead or that you would consider taking your own life? OR Sometimes in such circumstances, people may think or feel that they would be better off dead or that they may consider taking their own life. What about you?

3.4.2.2 Examples of Questions About Suicidal Intent and Plan If the patient provides a positive response to any question about suicidal ideation, the clinician must explore in some detail that condition. The purpose of this exploration is to determine how intense and how persistent the suicidal ideation is, to determine if there has been an attempt and to determine how and how well the patient is coping with those thoughts. For example, the clinician could say:

3.4 The Suicide Risk Assessment Process

You say that you have thought about dying, can you tell me more about that? Can you tell me more about the thoughts of taking your life that you are having? How often do you have those thoughts? How strong are they? How do you deal with them when they come? Can you overcome those thoughts or are you concerned that they may overcome you? When you are having those thoughts, what do you do? Do you feel safe? What have you done to act on those thoughts? Have you done anything that might have caused you harm or lead to death? Can you tell me about what happened?

3.4.2.3 Examples of Questions About Suicidal Plan If it is established that the patient has persistent and strong suicidal ideation, the next step is to determine if the patient has a plan. The presence of a plan immediately puts the patient into a higher risk category. For example, the clinician could say:

You have shared with me your thoughts about dying or taking your life, what are you planning to do? OR Can you tell me what you have thought about doing to take your own life?

Once the presence of a plan has been established, the clinician should ensure that they understand all the details. When is this to happen? How lethal is the plan? How committed is the patient to carrying out the plan? What are the facilitating factors (e.g., they have a gun in the house, they have obtained numerous bottles of pills, etc.)? If a plan is identified, evaluate steps taken to enact the plan (practice CO emission from the car), preparations for dying, and the patient’s expectations of lethality. Timing, location of plan, lethality of method, and availability are keys to evaluating level of risk. Ask about a plan for afterdeath like writing a suicide note or plan to give away the belongings. At each step in the suicide risk assessment, the clinician both continues to maintain the therapeutic alliance and applies a risk evaluation strategy that includes the patient’s answers to the questions posed and a list of risk factors that should be considered in addition to the information collected from the interview.

3 The Content of the Suicide Risk Assessment

3.4.2.4 Important Additional Inquiries 1. Past attempts If there is a history of past attempts, ask for when, method, what the patient understood to be the lethality of the method, and outcome. A history of suicide attempts or self-harm was strongly associated with increased risk of suicide (OR = 4.84, 95% CI 3.26–7.20) (Bolton et al. 2015). 2. Stressors If there are recent life stressors, ask about impact on the person, impact on significant others, and impact on financial situation. 3. Alcohol or substance use 4. Homicidal ideation Assess for homicidal ideation, particularly in postpartum women and in patients with cluster B personality disorders or who are psychotic or paranoid. 5. Social support Ask about social support, and obtain collateral information from family about withdrawal and isolation from them and/or from friends. 6. Understand the psychiatric diagnosis and comorbidity (both psychiatric and physical) Affective disorder is the most common psychiatric disorder, followed by substance (especially alcohol) misuse and schizophrenia. Comorbidity of these disorders greatly increases risk of suicide. Cluster B personality disorders or traits, eating disorders, and anxiety disorders also increase risk of suicide (Cavanagh et al. 2003). Key symptoms: anhedonia, impulsivity, hopelessness or despair, anxiety/ panic, anger, agitation, insomnia, and command hallucinations 6.1 Affective disorders Particularly depression (unipolar or bipolar depression) is a strong risk factor for suicide. More severe depressive psychopathology was associated with suicide risk (OR = 2.20, 95% CI 1.05–4.60), and severe degree of impairment was also associated with increased risk of suicide (Mattisson et al. 2007). Risk was also substantially increased where individuals had expressed feelings of hopelessness (OR = 2.20. 95% CI 1.49–3.23). Researchers identified the following risk factors for suicide in people with depression: male gender, family history of psychiatric disorder, previous attempted suicide, more severe depression, hopelessness, and comorbid disorders, including anxiety and misuse of alcohol and drugs (Hawton and Casanas 2013). The proportion of completed suicides to attempts in affective disorders is higher than in the general population, which suggests the high lethality of suicidal behavior in that population (Undurraga et al. 2012). Psychological autopsy studies showed that more than half of all people who die by suicide meet criteria for current depressive disorder (Cavanagh et al. 2003). 10–15% of patients with bipolar disorder die by suicide, commonly early in the illness course (Goodwin and Jamison 2007).

3.4 The Suicide Risk Assessment Process

6.2 Schizophrenia Can contribute to an elevated risk for suicide, particularly during the initial years of the illness. Command hallucinations increase risk. National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) longitudinal study of chronic schizophrenia found that, over a mean of 6 years, 38% of the patients made at least one suicide attempt and 57% admitted to substantial suicidal ideation. Some researchers suggested that 10 to 13% of schizophrenia patients die by suicide (Roy and Pompili 2009). It is also important to recognize that the risk of suicide in patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP) is high and high rates of premature mortality, particularly from suicide, may occur in the early phases of schizophrenia (Pompili et al. 2011). In some studies, risk of suicide in schizophrenia was associated less with the core symptoms of schizophrenia, such as delusions, but more with depression and specific affective symptoms (e.g., agitation, sense of worthlessness, and hopelessness). Other factors include previous suicide attempts, drug misuse, fear of mental disintegration, recent loss, and poor adherence to treatment (Hawton et al. 2005). 6.3 Alcohol or substance use Inquire about alcohol or substance use. If there is a suggestion of substance or alcohol use, ask about problematic use or a recent increase in use. Assess for current intoxication or withdrawal. Suicide was significantly increased in the presence of current substance misuse (i.e., alcohol and/or drug, OR = 2.17, 95% CI 1.77–2.66). This also applied in the two studies in which alcohol (OR = 2.47, 95% CI 1.40–4.36) or drug (OR = 2.66, 95% CI 1.37–5.20) misuse was examined separately. Rates of suicidal behavior in alcohol use disorder (AUD) are high in several studies, with 16–29% of individuals seeking treatment for AUD reporting at least one lifetime suicide attempt, and rates of suicide completion range between 2.4% and 7% and alcoholism contributed to about 25% of the suicides (Murphy and Wetzel 1990; Oquendo et al. 2010). The severity of the alcohol use disorder, aggression, impulsivity, and hopelessness seems to predispose to suicide. Key precipitating factors are depression and stressful life events, particularly disruption of personal relationships (Conner and Duberstein 2004). A meta-analysis found a strong significant association between SUD and suicidal ideation: OR 2.04 (95% CI: 1.59, 2.50; I2 = 88.8%, 16 studies); suicide attempt OR 2.49 (95% CI: 2.00, 2.98; I2 = 94.3%, 24 studies), and suicide death OR 1.49 (95% CI: 0.97, 2.00; I2 = 82.7%, 7 studies). Further evidence is required to assess and compare the association between suicide outcomes and different types of illicit drugs, dose-response relationship, and the way they are used (Poorolajal et al. 2016). Use of multiple substances can trigger suicidal behavior. Withdrawal from cocaine, amphetamines, and other addictive drugs can increase suicidal ideation and attempts. Extended use of sedatives, hypnotics, and anxiolytics can increase suicidal ideation and attempts.

3 The Content of the Suicide Risk Assessment

Systematic review of global burden disease found that illicit drug use is an important contributor to the global burden of disease and that opioid and amphetamine dependence were the two most common forms of illicit drug dependence worldwide, although millions of people were also dependent on cannabis or cocaine. Most individuals dependent on drugs were male (64% each for cannabis and amphetamines and 70% each for opioids and cocaine). Suicide was a significant contributor to illicit drug burden because it is a common cause of death in regular users of opioids, cocaine, or amphetamines. Suicide as a risk of amphetamine dependence accounted for 854,000 disability- adjusted life years (DALYs) (291,000–1,791,000), as a risk of opioid dependence for 671,000 DALYs (329,000–1,730,000), and as a risk of cocaine dependence for 324,000 DALYs (109,000–682,000). Countries with the highest rate of burden (>650 DALYs per 100,000 population) included the USA, UK, Russia, and Australia (Whiteford et al. 2013). 6.4 Anxiety The presence of symptoms of anxiety was also associated with increased risk of suicide (OR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.03–2.45). 6.5 Personality disorders Risk of suicide was strongly associated with the presence of an Axis II (i.e., borderline or antisocial personality) disorder (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.99–12.33). 30–40% of people who die by suicide have personality disorders. 6.6 Medical (physical) illness Comorbid chronic physical illness in a single-study suicide risk was associated with the presence of physical illness such as malignant neoplasms, HIV/AIDS, peptic ulcer disease, hemodialysis, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), Huntington’s disease, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, renal disease, pain syndromes, functional impairment, and diseases of nervous system (Hawton and van Heeringen 2009). Other disorders (e.g., undiagnosed diabetes, iron/thyroid deficiency) were also associated with individuals over 60 years old who died by suicide (Brådvik et al. 2008). See Appendix B for Relative risk of Suicide in Specific Psychiatric Disorders and Medical conditions.

6.7 A. Other factors Suicide is a common cause of death in people with eating disorders, in particular anorexia nervosa. The risk of suicide is increased in adjustment disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety disorders, and panic disorder. 6.7 B. Suicide during inpatient admission The risk of suicide while admitted as an inpatient is high. It happens particularly early during the admission (40% in the first 3 days). The rate of suicide has been reported at five per 1000 occupied beds each year in some studies and up to 860 suicides per 100,000 (Bolton et al. 2015).

3.4 The Suicide Risk Assessment Process

Meta-analysis of 27 studies on inpatient suicide suggested that the rates of suicide per 100,000 inpatient years increased steeply in the periods after 1980. Studies from the USA reported the highest number of suicides per 100,000 inpatient years followed by the UK and Ireland, Continental Europe, Australasia, and the Nordic countries. They noted that the pooled estimate of suicides per 100,000 inpatient years was 147 (95% CI 138–156). Studies from the USA reported the highest number of suicides per 100,000 inpatient years followed by the UK and Ireland, Continental Europe, Australasia, and the Nordic countries (Walsh et al. 2015). An increase in the suicide rate of admitted and discharged patients might be attributable to multiple factors, including changing legal and other criteria for admission, shorter lengths of inpatient treatment, increased prevalence of substance use, and a greater acuity of illness among those admitted in the era of deinstitutionalization (Walsh et al. 2015). 6.8 Suicide after recent hospital discharge The risk of suicide is high in the first week after discharge from a psychiatric hospital admission, remains high for the first few months after discharge, and then slowly decreases. The risk of suicide after discharge is especially high for psychiatric patients who were admitted to hospital with a suicide attempt (Bolton et al. 2015). Recent research on post discharge suicide rate found a pooled rate of 484 per 100,000 person-years. The rate is 44 times the global suicide rate of 11.4 per 100,000 patients per year in 2012. Studies with follow-up periods of 3–12 months had almost 60 times the global suicide rates, and the suicide rate among discharged patients was more than 30 times that in the general population even for periods of follow-up of 5–10 years (Chung et al. 2017). 6.9 Suicide among patients presenting to the emergency department Rates of future suicide among people presenting to the emergency department with self-harm are high: 2% of these people will kill themselves within 1 year, and the 5-year estimate of suicide is 4%. This risk is more than 50 times greater than that seen in the general population and is associated with a 40-year reduction in average life expectancy. Rates of repeat self-harm after contact with the emergency department are 10% at 1 month and as high as 27% at 6 months (Bolton et al. 2015). 6.10 Past psychiatric hospital admissions Higher risk in those with a history of previous psychiatric hospital admissions (OR = 2.37, 95% CI 0.86–6.55) (Bolton et al. 2015) Danish study concluded that there are two sharp peaks of risk for suicide around psychiatric hospitalization, one in the first week after admission and another in the first week after discharge; suicide risk is significantly higher in patients receiving a shorter than median length of hospital treatment; affective disorders impacted suicide at the strongest in terms of its effect size and population attributable risk (PAR); and suicide risk associated with affective and schizophrenia spectrum disorders declined quickly after treatment and recovery, while the risk associated with substance abuse disorders declined relatively slower.

3 The Content of the Suicide Risk Assessment

History of admission increases the risk relatively more in women than in men (Qin and Nordentoft 2005). 6.11 Suicide after visiting healthcare professional A systematic review and meta-analysis of mental health service contact prior to suicide published in 2018 found that within the prior year, 18.3% of persons who died by suicide had contact with inpatient mental health services, 26.1% had contact with outpatient mental health services, and 25.7% had contact with inpatient or outpatient mental health services (Walby et al. 2018). A review published by the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2002 reported that approximately 32% of people who died by suicide were in contact with mental health services in the year before death, across all age groups. They also reported that contact with primary care providers in the month before suicide averaged approximately 45% (range = 20–76%). The rate of contact with primary care providers within 1 year of suicide averaged approximately 77% (range = 57–90%) (Luoma et al. 2002). Earlier studies had shown that up to 41% of persons who died by suicide were in contact with inpatient services in the year before death (Pirkis and Burgess 1998). In countries where the mental health services are not well developed, the proportion of people in suicidal crisis consulting a general physician is likely to be higher (WHO). 6.12 Understand the social and demographic risk factors for suicide Suicide risk was significantly greater in males (OR = 1.76, 95% CI 1.08–2.86). Risk increases with age; rates of suicide increase after puberty and in adults over the age of 65. Marital status: Widowed, divorced, and single Suicide seems to be much higher in certain cultural and ethnic groups. Indigenous populations in several countries have high suicide rates compared with the rest of the population, for example, Native American people in the USA, Métis and Inuit in Canada, Australian Aborigines, and Maori in New Zealand all have high rates of suicide (Fortune and Hawton 2007). Some researchers suggest that LGBTQ youth often face considerable stress over the course of their lives because of bullying, victimization, and overt/covert discrimination, and they have higher rates of depression, suicide, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, and alcohol and drug use (Rodgers 2017). Some researchers suggested that suicide rates are higher when patient’s caregiver is unavailable or when patients are not responding to treatment. Frequent changes of residence had been identified as a risk of suicide in adolescence. 6.13 Family history of suicide or mental illness Suicide risk was increased where there was a family history of mental disorder (OR = 1.41, 95% CI 1.0–1.97), while risk was increased where there was a family history of suicide (OR = 1.83, 95% CI 0.96–3.47) (Bolton et al. 2015). Family history of suicide increases the risk at least twofold, particularly in girls and women, independently of family psychiatric history (Qin et al. 2003; Hawton and van Heeringen 2009).

3.4 The Suicide Risk Assessment Process

6.14 Childhood trauma Physical and, in particular, sexual abuse during childhood is strongly associated with suicide. The effects of childhood maltreatment and its relation to suicide are compounded by intergenerational transmission of abuse. Familial transmission of suicidal behavior is most likely if the person attempting suicide had been sexually abused as a child. Abuse is, thus, not only a risk factor for suicidal behavior for individuals abused as children but also for their offspring (Bridge et al. 2006).

3.4.3 Protective Factors In addition to risk factors, and sometimes overlooked, suicide risk assessment should identify protective factors that may reduce suicide risk. Although patients who exhibit protective factors do attempt and complete suicide, multiple protective factors generally contribute to patient resiliency in the face of stress and adversity. Protective factors may be considered in each of the domains of the individual, family, work, and community. Important factors may include: Internal: Ability to cope with stress, religious beliefs, frustration tolerance External: Responsibility to children except among those with postpartum psychosis or beloved pets, positive therapeutic relationships, supportive relationships (Hawton and van Heeringen 2009) Although the above listed factors may only provide a certain degree of protection, it is essential that clinicians recognize the poor predictive power and limitations of reliance on presence or absence of these factors (Large et al. 2011; National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health 2011).

3.4.4 S tep 3: Formulating Risk: Make a Clinical Judgment of the Risk that a Patient/Client May Attempt or Complete Suicide in the Short or Long Term • • • • •

Integrate and prioritize all the information regarding risk and protective factors. Assess if the patient is minimizing or escalating their stated risk. Assess acute and imminent suicidality. Assess chronic and ongoing suicidality. Assess acute exacerbation of a patient with chronic risk. In terms of acute risk, determine if the risk level is:

• Low acute risk

3 The Content of the Suicide Risk Assessment

When there are no specific risk factors requiring intervention and there are few active concerns about suicide. The current suicidal intent, plan, and preparatory acts are absent. The person has the willingness and ability to utilize a safety plan in the case of increase in suicidal thoughts or change in intent. Family and clinician feel confident of patient’s ability and willingness to maintain his or her own safety. In cases of previously established suicidal gestures or behaviors, low risk implies that there are no new, treatable risk factors to target; the patient/client is at “their baseline risk.” The patient/client may require follow-up monitoring of clinical status and suicide risk if (but not limited to): –– Changes in life situation and/or mental status occur that may be reasonably expected to change suicide risk. –– Changes in care pathways or continuity occur (e.g., transition from a day-hospital to a community clinic setting). • Medium acute risk When there are some identified risk factors that may impact risk and there is a need for a suicide plan to address risk factors. Suicide risk is present but not imminent; patient has no intent, and in the opinion of the health provider, suicide risk can be managed through current supports and ongoing clinical care. Preparatory acts are usually absent, and the clinician believes that patient can maintain safety independently and follow the safety plan. In this circumstance the patient requires ongoing monitoring of suicide risk, and the following shall be implemented: –– Suicide risk is formally assessed and the assessment outcome is appropriately documented. –– A suicide risk monitoring and management plan is developed, documented, communicated, implemented, and reviewed as clinically indicated. –– A change in suicide risk status is documented and appropriately communicated. –– The suicide risk level is documented and appropriately communicated, as per policy. • High acute risk When in the opinion of the health provider, suicide risk is high (imminent). There are multiple risk factors that convey a strong degree of risk, and patient has intent to die by suicide and inability to maintain safety independently of external support or help. A high level of intervention or monitoring is required such as hospitalization. Often this suggests that there is a subjective sense of urgency to address the risk factors as quickly as possible. In this case the patient requires increased monitoring of suicide risk, and the following shall be implemented:

3.4 The Suicide Risk Assessment Process

–– The high level of suicide risk shall be appropriately documented and communicated to all relevant providers and as clinically determined within the patient’s circle of care. –– A suicide risk assessment, intervention, and monitoring protocol shall be documented in the patient’s individual care plan and other locations as deemed appropriate by the clinical care team. This may require application of constant, close, or other monitoring frameworks as clinically determined. –– The suicide risk assessment and monitoring plan shall be appropriately communicated to all relevant care providers and such members of the patient’s circle of care as deemed appropriate by the responsible clinician. –– The responsible clinician shall determine the appropriate level and location of care based on their best clinical judgment. Ongoing formal review of the patient’s suicide risk status shall be undertaken as deemed appropriate by the clinical care team.

In terms of chronic risk, determine if the risk level is:

• Low chronic risk For example, patients with personality disorders with ability to manage their stressors without resorting to suicidal ideation or behavior. • Medium chronic risk Individuals with major mental illnesses and/or personality disorders, substance abuse/ dependence, and/or chronic medical conditions or pain. However, in these individuals, the relative balance of protective factors, coping skills, reasons for living, and psychosocial stability suggests an enhanced ability to endure future crises without resorting to self-directed violence and/or suicidal behaviors. • High chronic risk Patients with chronic major mental illness and/or personality disorder, history of prior suicide attempt(s), history of substance abuse/dependence, chronic pain, chronic suicidal ideation, chronic medical illness, and limited coping skills who usually self-harm but when faced new stressful situation such as loss of partner or a job, they are at chronic risk for becoming acutely suicidal. It is the combination of the information obtained from the patient and the determination of additional risk factors that are used to conduct a suicide risk assessment. For example, a patient may say that they have persistent ideation but that they have no plan and that they can push the thoughts about suicide away from their mind

3 The Content of the Suicide Risk Assessment

and can control their behavior. However, that same patient is known to have made two suicide attempts in the past year, is suffering from depression, is feeling hopeless, and has recently lost their job. It is this combination of interview information and additional risk factors that the clinician uses to determine risk for suicide. Some researchers argued that the clinical formulation of risk is based on a cognitive understanding of data gathered about risk, ideation, and protective factors and an intuitive process that takes into account such factors as the clinician’s familiarity with the patient and the patient’s character structure (Berman and Silverman 2014; Wortzel et al. 2014).

References Berman AL, Silverman MM. Suicide risk assessment and risk formulation part II: suicide risk formulation and the determination of levels of risk. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2014;44(4):432–43. Betz ME, Wintersteen M, Boudreaux ED, et al. Suicide risk: challenges and opportunities in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;68(6):758–65. Bolton JM, Gunnell D, Turecki G. Suicide risk assessment and intervention in people with mental illness. BMJ. 2015;351:h4978. Brådvik L, Mattisson C, Bogren M, Nettelbladt P. Long-term suicide risk of depression in the Lundby cohort 1947–1997—severity and gender. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2008;117:185–91. Bridge JA, et al. Adolescent suicide and suicidal behavior. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2006;47:372–94. Bryan CJ, Corso KA, et al. Therapeutic alliance and change in suicidal ideation during treatment in integrated primary care settings. Arch Suicide Res. 2012;16(4):316–23. Cavanagh JTO, Carson AJ, Sharpe M, Lawrie SM. Psychological autopsy studies of suicide: a systematic review. Psychol Med. 2003;33:395–405. Chung DT, Ryan CJ, Hadzi-Pavlovic D, Singh SP, Stanton C, Large MM. Suicide rates after discharge from psychiatric facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2017;74(7):694–702. Review. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.1044. Conner KR, Duberstein PR. Predisposing and precipitating factors for suicide among alcoholics: empirical review and conceptual integration. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2004;28:6S–17S. Fortune SA, Hawton K. Culture and mental disorders: suicidal behaviour. In: Bhugra D, Bhui K, editors. Textbook of cultural psychiatry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p. 255–71. Goodwin FK, Jamison KR. Manic-depressive illness: bipolar disorders and recurrent depression. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007. Hawton K, Casañas I, et al. Risk factors for suicide in individuals with depression: a systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2013;147(1–3):17–28. Hawton K, van Heeringen K. Suicide Lancet. 2009;373(9672):1372–81. Hawton K, Sutton L, Haw C, et al. Schizophrenia and suicide: a systematic review of risk factors. Br J Psychiatry. 2005;187:9–20. Jacobs D, Baldessarini R et al. Practice guideline for the assessment and treatment of patients with suicidal behaviors. 2010. Jobes DA. The Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS): an evolving evidence-based clinical approach to suicidal risk. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2012;42(6):640–53. Kene P, Yee ET, Gimmestad KD. Suicide assessment and treatment: gaps between theory, research, and practice. Death Stud. 2018:1–9. Large M, Smith G, Sharma S, Nielssen O, Singh SP. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical factors associated with the suicide of psychiatric in-patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2011;124:18–29.

References

Luoma JB, Martin CE, Pearson J. Contact with mental health and primary care providers before suicide: a review of the evidence. Am J Psychiatry. 2002;159:909–16. Mattisson C, Bogren M, Horstmann V, Munk-Jorgensen P, Nettelbladt P. The long-term course of depressive disorders in the Lundby Study. Psychol Med. 2007;37:883–91. Murphy GE, Wetzel RD. The lifetime risk of suicide in alcoholism. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1990;47(4):383–92. National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health. Self-harm: The NICE guideline on longer-term management. London: National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health; 2011. Olfson M, Marcus SC, Bridge JA. Emergency department recognition of mental disorders and short-term outcome of deliberate self-harm. Am J Psychiatry. 2013;170:1142–50. Oquendo MA, Currier D, Liu SM, Hasin DS, Grant BF, Blanco C. Increased risk for suicidal behavior in comorbid bipolar disorder and alcohol use disorders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC). J Clin Psychiatry. 2010;71(7):902–9. Pinals DA, Anacker L. Mental illness and firearms: legal context and clinical approaches. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2016;39(4):611–21. Pirkis J, Burgess P. Suicide and recency of health care contacts: a systematic review. Br J Psychiatry. 1998;173:462–74. Pompili M, Serafini G, Innamorati M, Lester D, et al. 2011. Suicide risk in first episode psychosis: a selective review of the current literature. Schizophr Res. 2011;129(1):1–11. Poorolajal J, Haghtalab T, Farhadi M, Darvishi N. Substance use disorder and risk of suicidal ideation, suicide attempt and suicide death: a meta-analysis. J Public Health (Oxf). 2016;38(3):e282–91. Qin P, Nordentoft M. Suicide risk in relation to psychiatric hospitalization: evidence based on longitudinal registers. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(4):427–32. Qin P, Agerbo E, et al. Suicide risk in relation to socioeconomic, demographic, psychiatric and familiar factors: a national register based study of all suicides in Denmark, 1981-1997. Am J Psychiatry. 2003;160:765–72. Rodgers SM. Transitional age lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth: issues of diversity, integrated identities, and mental health. Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2017;26(2):297–309. Roy A, Pompili M. Management of schizophrenia with suicide risk. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 2009;32(4):863–83. Undurraga J, Baldessarini RJ, Valenti M, Pacchiarotti I, Vieta E. Suicidal risk factors in bipolar I and II disorder patients. J Clin Psychiatry. 2012;73:778–82. Walby FA, Myhre MØ, Kildahl AT. Contact with mental health services prior to suicide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatr Serv. 2018:appips201700475. Walsh G, Sara G, Ryan CJ, Large M. Meta-analysis of suicide rates among psychiatric in-patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2015;131(3):174–84. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.12383. Whiteford HA, Degenhardt L, Rehm J, Baxter AJ, Ferrari AJ, Erskine HE, Charlson FJ, Norman RE, Flaxman AD, Johns N, Burstein R, Murray CJ, Vos T. Global burden of disease attributable to mental and substance use disorders: findings from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2013;382(9904):1575–86. Wortzel H, et al. Therapeutic risk management of the suicidal patient: stratifying risk in terms of severity and temporality. J Psychiatr Pract. 2014;20(1):63–7.

Suicide Risk Assessment Tools and Instruments

4.1

hallenges in Evaluation of Suicide Risk C Assessment Tools

• The ability to predict suicide based on the score (or scores) on a risk assessment tool is low. • Predictive validity is hard to evaluate because suicide is relatively a rare event. • Research on the predictive value suicide risk assessment tools is forced rely on proxy outcome measures such as increase in risk factors or warning signs of suicide. • There is no evidence to support the use of summary scores as the sole basis for decision-making on acute risk.

4.2

Reasons for Using Suicide Risk Assessment Tools

• To gather additional information that can shed light on the person’s degree of risk of suicide. • To corroborate findings from clinical interviews. • To identify discrepancy in risk, if any. For example, in some instances, a person may not disclose indicators of risk in a clinical interview but may report indicators on a self-report tool. • To standardize the assessment and improve the overall quality of the suicide risk assessment process.

4.3

Suicide Screening and Risk Assessment Instruments

The following are some of the suicide screening and assessment instruments. This is not an exhaustive list, so clinicians are encouraged to review the literature to get a complete list of the different instruments. © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 J. Sadek, A Clinician’s Guide to Suicide Risk Assessment and Management, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77773-3_4

4.4

4 Suicide Risk Assessment Tools and Instruments

Screening Tools

Ask Suicide-Screening Questions (ASQ) National Institute of Mental Health: ASQ is a four-item suicide-screening tool designed to be used for people ages 10–24 in emergency departments, inpatient units, and primary care facilities. A Brief Suicide Safety Assessment is available to be used when patients screen positive for suicide risk on the ASQ. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/ask-suicide-screening-questionsasq.shtml Behavioral Health Measure-10® (BHM-10®): The BHM-10 is a ten-item tool that assesses patient depression, anxiety, and overall life functioning. The instruments can be administered electronically, although these require a licensing fee. https://www.pointnclick.com/sites/default/files/files/CelestHealth%20 Behavioral%20Health%20Measure-10%2001-29-2010.pdf Behavioral Health Screen (BHS): The BHS is the screening tool delivered by the BH-Works browser-based web software. The BHS screens across 16 domains of mental health and psychosocial risk factors. Several versions are available: child (ages 6–11), adolescent primary care (ages 12–24), primary care (ages 24 and up), and emergency department (ages 12 and up). There is a licensing fee for this instrument. https://bh-works.com/ Brief Symptom Inventory 18® (BSI 18®): The BSI 18 is an 18-item instrument designed to measure psychological distress and psychiatric disorders in individuals age 18 and older. It includes one suicide-specific question. The BSI 18 can be administered with paper and pencil, via computer, or online and takes approximately 4 min to complete. Manuals and trainings are available. There is a licensing fee for this instrument. http://www.pearsonclinical.com/psychology/products/ 100000638/brief-symptom-inventory-18-bsi18.html Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS): The C-SSRS features questions that help determine whether an individual is at risk for suicide. It is available in 114 country-specific languages. There are brief versions of the C-SSRS often used as a screening tool that, based on patient response, can lead to the administration of the longer C-SSRS to triage patients. http://www.cssrs.columbia.edu/ Outcome Questionnaire-45.2® (OQ-45.2®): The OQ-45.2 helps mental health professionals assess symptom distress (depression and anxiety), interpersonal relationships (loneliness, conflicts with others, and marriage and family difficulties), and social role (difficulties in the workplace, school, or home). It includes explicit questions about suicide and is for use with adults. There is a licensing fee for this instrument. http://www.oqmeasures.com/

4.5

atient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) P Depression Scale

The PHQ-9 is a widely used nine-item tool used to diagnose and monitor the severity of depression. Question 9 screens for the presence and duration of suicide

4.6 SAFE-T

ideation. This screening tool and an instruction manual are available at no cost. http://www.phqscreeners.com Suicide Behavior Questionnaire-Revised (SBQ-R): The SBQ-R is four-item self-report questionnaire that asks about future anticipation of suicidal thoughts or behaviors as well as past and present ones and includes a question about lifetime suicidal ideation, plans to commit suicide, and actual attempts. https://www.integration.samhsa.gov/images/res/SBQ.pdf

4.6

SAFE-T

SAFE-T (Suicide Assessment Five-Step Evaluation and Triage) was developed in collaboration with the Suicide Prevention Resource Center and Screening for Mental Health.

4.6.1 Assessment Tools Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS): The C-SSRS is frequently used as a secondary suicide assessment tool following the use of one of the available screening tools. Three versions of the C-SSRS are used in clinical practice to assess patient safety and management and monitor improvements or worsening of suicidality. • The Lifetime/Recent version gathers lifetime history of suicidality, as well as recent suicide-related ideation and/or behavior. This version is appropriate for use as part of the person’s first interview. • The Since Last Visit version prospectively monitors suicide-related behavior since the person’s last visit or the last time the C-SSRS was administered. • The Risk Assessment version is intended for use in acute care settings as it establishes a person’s immediate risk of suicide. Suicide-related ideation and behavior is assessed over the past week and lifetime through a checklist of protective and risk factors for suicidality. http://www.cssrs.columbia.edu/ Reasons for Living (RFL; Linehan et al. 1983): The RFL is a self-report questionnaire that measures clients’ expectancies about the consequences of living versus killing oneself and assesses the importance of various reasons for living. It may be used to explore differences in the reasons for living among individuals who engage in suicide-related behavior and those who do not (e.g., “I believe that I could cope with anything life has to offer”). The measure has six subscales: Survival and Coping Beliefs, Responsibility to Family, Child-Related Concerns, Fear of Suicide, Fear of Social Disapproval, and Moral Objections. http://depts.washington.edu/uwbrtc/resources/assessment-instruments http://depts.washington.edu/uwbrtc/wp-content/uploads/LSSN-LRAMPv1.0.pdf

https://5medbook.com Want to CONTINUE READING? https://5medbook.com Go to www.5medbook.com for FREE READING all books https://5medbook.com https://5medbook.com

[Part 1] Joseph Sadek - A Clinician’s Guide to Suicide Risk Assessment and Management

Articles inside

[Part 1] Joseph Sadek - A Clinician’s Guide to Suicide Risk Assessment and Management